Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.

Essay topics:

Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.

Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.

The assertion that it is no longer possible for the society to consider any living man or woman because the intense media scrutiny nearly always serve to diminish their reputation is agreeable for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of the media to find ways to demean public figures, heroes or otherwise. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called heroes have vindicated themselves and restored their reputation diminished by the media, these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered; the reputation of any public figure, hero or otherwise, is forever tarnished.

The chief reason to support the claim and the reason thereof, has to do with forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media largely consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their share-holders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers and listeners, find information about the misfortunes or misdeeds of others, especially public figures, far more compelling than their accomplishments and virtues. In short, we love a good scandal. One needs to look no further than newsstand, local television news broadcast or talk-show, to find ample evidence that this is the case. The media, thus to maximize profits, give people what they demand: intense scrutiny of heroic public figures that serves to destroy their reputation.

A second reason to agree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the collective minds of people, that their hero is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. A presumption that is understandable. Any demographic study would show that the majority of people relying on mainstream media for information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills or objectivity to see beyond what media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgement of public figures – heroic or otherwise.

The third reason to support the assertion has to do with the longer-term fallout of intense media scrutiny and presumption as discussed. Once the reputation of a person is tarnished as a result of media scrutiny, it is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases where public figures whose reputation had been tarnished by the media were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet these are exceptional cases; besides, damage award is no indication that public has expunged from their collective mind the perception that the fallen hero is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.

In conclusion, the statement and the underlying reason are fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by earning profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals may become their cynosure. Moreover, an opportunity for vindication is a little consolation in a society which seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching the heroes being knocked off their pedestals.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2020-01-12 shuocurity 66 view
2019-11-01 Morienta 50 view
2019-10-25 Nico Lingga 66 view
2019-10-02 shivamchug 54 view
2019-09-20 raolitesh@gmail.com 66 view
Essay Categories

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, third, thus, while, as to, at least, for example, in conclusion, in short, sort of, such as, as a result, in the first place

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2928.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 549.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33333333333 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93514354575 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504553734062 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 926.1 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.836514757 60.3974514979 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.4 118.986275619 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.45 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.85 5.21951772744 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299834331992 0.243740707755 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0809656354482 0.0831039109588 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0818904348117 0.0758088955206 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173567296608 0.150359130593 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0821483740927 0.0667264976115 123% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.1392134831 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 100.480337079 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 29.0 11.8971910112 244% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 29.0 11.7820224719 246% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.